TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said: Thanks for that . It does not confirm that Trump called the drug a miracle cure. The above news report has Trump calling it a "miracle" that a woman recovered (was cured?) from COVID after taking hydroxychloroquine -- though as the cited news report points out, whether the drug had anything to do with her recovery was up for debate. But then, of course, Trump in 2020 also said the same drug -- which numerous credible studies have found to have no benefit against COVID -- could be among "the biggest game changers in the history of medicine" for its potential effects against COVID-19. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-drug/no-proof-drug-touted-by-trump-is-effective-against-coronavirus-eu-idUSKBN21I275/ Once again, he was spectacularly wrong in his claims. All The Times Trump Has Promoted Hydroxychloroquine May 22, 2020 ... "March 21 Citing a paper that was later ripped apart by experts, Trump tweeted “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,” and said that the drugs should be “put in use IMMEDIATELY. PEOPLE ARE DYING, MOVE FAST, and GOD BLESS EVERYONE!” https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-the-times-trump-promoted-hydroxychloroquine/ Edited January 7 by TallGuyJohninBKK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Lacessit said: If Trump did take HCQ, it obviously did not work, as he got COVID. He also got world-class medical care at Walter Reed Hospital, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Presumably some of the people who believed in his endorsement of HCQ were not as fortunate. I got the Pfizer. Twice. And I still got Covid. All this study indicates is that people who were given HCQ had a higher mortality rate. It includes no information about why those patients were chosen to receive HCQ. They didn't evaluate any alternative hypotheses, or if they did, they didn't mention them. My guess is that, knowing that HCQ has profound side effects, those patients were chosen to receive HCQ because they were in worse shape. Something was different about them already, that justified the use of HCQ. But that's just a guess. Edited January 7 by impulse 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, impulse said: I got the Pfizer. Twice. And I still got Covid. Many people got COVID after vaccination. I was one of them, in the most vulnerable age cohort. Delta variant. Three days of a sore throat and runny nose, no other symptoms. My unvaccinated GF, 23 years younger than me, was extremely ill for 10-11 days. The significant aspect of vaccination is not whether one got COVID, but how serious the ensuing illness was. The data that came out of Australia indicated an unvaccinated person was 6-7 times more likely to require ICU admission than a vaccinated person. My own experience of COVID supports that. IMO HCQ and ivermectin were two quack remedies, along with bleach ["disinfectant"], another Trump proposition. It's a pity cocaine is illegal, I'll bet that would have been embraced with great enthusiasm. At least it would have made COVID patients feel better. Edited January 7 by stats actual quoted term of "disinfectant" added 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Lacessit said: IMO HCQ and ivermectin were two quack remedies, along with bleach, another Trump proposition. That's one opinion. My belief (and that's all that it is) is that HCQ and Ivermectin are useful in cases where the side effects of the Covid treatment lead to complications related to parasites, which is their indicated use. On an aside, that's why I think the hospitals didn't randomly administer HCQ. I suspect they only (or preferentially) gave HCQ to patients already in distress. And that's why it's correlated with higher mortality. But the reason(s) isn't mentioned in this meta-study. Edited January 7 by stats off topic comment removed 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chwooly Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 5 hours ago, ozimoron said: A lot of people weren't the president Of course, Because the general public ALWAYS go to the president for their medical needs. If you are stupid enough to listen to a nonprofessional and don't do any research your deserve what ever happens. Edited January 7 by Chwooly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 13 minutes ago, Chwooly said: Of course, Because the general public ALWAYS go to the president for their medical needs. If you are stupid enough to listen to a nonprofessional and don't do any research your deserve what ever happens. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't you just described a typical Trump supporter? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chwooly Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Just now, Lacessit said: Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't you just described a typical Trump supporter? Actually I just described the average American of voting age. Both Republican and Democrat voters are morons and deserve to live in the <deleted> hole they have allowed to be created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Another media report on the same study, this from Politico EU: Hydroxychloroquine could have caused 17,000 deaths during Covid, study finds Former US President Donald Trump said: ‘What do you have to lose? Take it.’ https://www.politico.eu/article/hydroxychloroquine-could-have-caused-17000-deaths-during-covid-study-finds/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenStark Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 13 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Another media report on the same study, this from Politico EU: Hydroxychloroquine could have caused 17,000 deaths during Covid, study finds Former US President Donald Trump said: ‘What do you have to lose? Take it.’ https://www.politico.eu/article/hydroxychloroquine-could-have-caused-17000-deaths-during-covid-study-finds/ Well, because an untruth is being repeated times over doesn't make it a truth. Of course all media jump on the same story, and post it in their own words. Doesn't mean it is another study. At least the changed the wording from MAYBE to COULD HAVE, which actually has the same meaning e.g.: we have no evidence, or in the words of a certain member of the AN forum, you have nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Chwooly said: Actually I just described the average American of voting age. Both Republican and Democrat voters are morons and deserve to live in the <deleted> hole they have allowed to be created. Impact of Trump's Promotion of Unproven COVID-19 Treatments and Subsequent Internet Trends: Observational Study Published online 2020 Nov 20 ... "From March 1 to April 30, 2020, Donald J Trump made 11 tweets about unproven therapies and mentioned these therapies 65 times in White House briefings, especially touting hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. ... Our results show that there was a substantial increase in purchases and searches for previously unpurchased and unsearched therapies by the general public following the backing of US president Donald J Trump. These increases correlated with his discussions in press conferences and personal social media posts advocating for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine cures. ... Previous studies have shown that individuals are susceptible to easy claims and conspiracies without appropriate evidence [32], and once these inauthentic claims are given momentum, they are hard to dissuade." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7685699/ Edited January 7 by TallGuyJohninBKK 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, impulse said: I got the Pfizer. Twice. And I still got Covid. All this study indicates is that people who were given HCQ had a higher mortality rate. It includes no information about why those patients were chosen to receive HCQ. They didn't evaluate any alternative hypotheses, or if they did, they didn't mention them. My guess is that, knowing that HCQ has profound side effects, those patients were chosen to receive HCQ because they were in worse shape. Something was different about them already, that justified the use of HCQ. But that's just a guess. You're comparing a vaccine, aimed at reducing the severity of an illness, to a medicine, aimed at healing. As you said 'just a guess', but a not relevant guess since the sample taken was random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattlesnake Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 2 hours ago, Lacessit said: IMO HCQ and ivermectin were two quack remedies, along with bleach ["disinfectant"], another Trump proposition. He was talking about chlorine dioxide and he was right. Inhibition of the Binding of Variants of SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Spike Protein to a Human Receptor by Chlorine Dioxide https://www.remedypublications.com/open-access/inhibition-of-the-binding-of-variants-of-sars-cov-2-coronavirus-spike-7364.pdf "These findings show that chlorine dioxide aqueous solution can inactivate the binding of the variant spike proteins to the human ACE2 receptor protein, indicating that this strategy may be useful in blocking the transmission of variant SARS-CoV-2 viruses." Protective effect of low-concentration chlorine dioxide gas against influenza A virus infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18089729/ Evaluation of the antiviral activity of chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite against feline calicivirus, human influenza virus, measles virus, canine distemper virus, human herpesvirus, human adenovirus, canine adenovirus and canine parvovirus https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20616431/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said: He was talking about chlorine dioxide and he was right. He was musing about the ability to somehow apply a "disinfectant" -- commonly thought of as bleach -- to internal human tissue in a way that would kill the coronavirus. And no, he wasn't right in the sense of being able to do that in any practical, medically acceptable way. Trump's comments came after William Bryan, the undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security, presented a study that found sun exposure and cleaning agents like bleach can kill the virus when it lingers on surfaces. "Trump remarked on the effectiveness of those methods and wondered if they could help address infections in the human body. ... "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me." ... "Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients. "It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object." https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/ Edited January 7 by TallGuyJohninBKK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPriority Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Anyone who thinks Trump didn’t promote unscientific bulldust (for whatever purpose who knows) really isn’t worthy of having discussions with. Trumpism, qanon, vaccine lies and insurrection all go hand in hand sadly… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) Regarding the abovementioned claim regarding chlorine dioxide, also NO! Factors associated with the consumption of chlorine dioxide to prevent and treat COVID-19 in the Peruvian population: a cross-sectional study Published: 17 November 2021 Chlorine dioxide consumption "Chlorine dioxide is a reactive synthetic gas that has been used in the paper industry, decontamination of public buildings, and water purification [5]. Its high reactivity explains its properties to eliminate microorganisms, however, this also determines the potential adverse effects [5]. Despite this, chlorine dioxide has been promoted as a cure for diseases such as malaria, HIV and cancer, among others [13]; it has also been proposed to prevent or treat COVID-19 [14]. However, there is no evidence on the efficacy of chlorine dioxide for such purposes, but there is evidence on its harmful effects, so institutions such as the Pan American Health Organization do not recommend its use [15]." [emphasis added] https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12191-9 AND Use of Ivermectin and Chlorine Dioxide for COVID-19 Treatment and Prophylaxis in Peru: A Narrative Review Published online 2022 Nov 23 "Chlorine dioxide was already being marketed in the United States and Europe as a disinfectant and “cure-all” before the coronavirus pandemic. One common product produces chlorine dioxide by combining sodium chlorite and citric acid immediately before use. Since these products were already on the market, they were quickly promoted as COVID-19 prophylactics and treatments [13]. However, the usefulness of this chemical has been rejected by several important organizations such as the Pan American Health Organization and the Peruvian National Institute of Health because there is no available published scientific evidence that has supported the use of chlorine dioxide for COVID-19 prevention or treatment, whether administered orally or by inhalation." [emphasis added] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9788901/ CD has been shown as an effective way of killing viruses on inanimate surfaces like masks and other surfaces.... but not internally in the human body. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Warns Seller Marketing Dangerous Chlorine Dioxide Products that Claim to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to a seller that markets fraudulent and dangerous chlorine dioxide products known as “Miracle Mineral Solution” for prevention and treatment of “Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019” (COVID-19). The FDA has previously warned consumers not to purchase or drink chlorine dioxide products sold online as medical treatments, as the agency is not aware of any scientific evidence supporting their safety or effectiveness and they pose significant risks to patient health." ... Chlorine dioxide products have not been shown to be safe and effective for any use, including COVID-19, but these products continue to be sold as a remedy for treating autism, cancer, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and flu, among other conditions, despite their harmful effects." https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-warns-seller-marketing-dangerous-chlorine-dioxide-products-claim Edited January 7 by TallGuyJohninBKK 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freedomnow Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/7/2024 at 10:19 AM, DudleySquat said: What does it have to do with a scientific study? It reflects the mind that recommended the drug - that killed so many - to the world.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/7/2024 at 3:42 PM, novacova said: Admit it, you’re being scammed by the media and your pet politicians. At this point in history, why anyone would believe anything coming out of the media and the mouths of politicians is baffling. It’s a complete joke and the joke is on the suckers that fall for it. Funny how statistics are the easiest fact in the world to verify and yet .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DudleySquat Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 15 hours ago, freedomnow said: It reflects the mind that recommended the drug - that killed so many - to the world.... I will repeat myself. What does that have to do with a scientific study? I don't care and science doesn't care who or who did not recommend it. Edited January 11 by stats comment on fellow forum member removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DudleySquat Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/7/2024 at 9:44 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Regarding the abovementioned claim regarding chlorine dioxide, also NO! Factors associated with the consumption of chlorine dioxide to prevent and treat COVID-19 in the Peruvian population: a cross-sectional study Published: 17 November 2021 Chlorine dioxide consumption "Chlorine dioxide is a reactive synthetic gas that has been used in the paper industry, decontamination of public buildings, and water purification [5]. Its high reactivity explains its properties to eliminate microorganisms, however, this also determines the potential adverse effects [5]. Despite this, chlorine dioxide has been promoted as a cure for diseases such as malaria, HIV and cancer, among others [13]; it has also been proposed to prevent or treat COVID-19 [14]. However, there is no evidence on the efficacy of chlorine dioxide for such purposes, but there is evidence on its harmful effects, so institutions such as the Pan American Health Organization do not recommend its use [15]." [emphasis added] https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12191-9 AND Use of Ivermectin and Chlorine Dioxide for COVID-19 Treatment and Prophylaxis in Peru: A Narrative Review Published online 2022 Nov 23 "Chlorine dioxide was already being marketed in the United States and Europe as a disinfectant and “cure-all” before the coronavirus pandemic. One common product produces chlorine dioxide by combining sodium chlorite and citric acid immediately before use. Since these products were already on the market, they were quickly promoted as COVID-19 prophylactics and treatments [13]. However, the usefulness of this chemical has been rejected by several important organizations such as the Pan American Health Organization and the Peruvian National Institute of Health because there is no available published scientific evidence that has supported the use of chlorine dioxide for COVID-19 prevention or treatment, whether administered orally or by inhalation." [emphasis added] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9788901/ CD has been shown as an effective way of killing viruses on inanimate surfaces like masks and other surfaces.... but not internally in the human body. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Warns Seller Marketing Dangerous Chlorine Dioxide Products that Claim to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to a seller that markets fraudulent and dangerous chlorine dioxide products known as “Miracle Mineral Solution” for prevention and treatment of “Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019” (COVID-19). The FDA has previously warned consumers not to purchase or drink chlorine dioxide products sold online as medical treatments, as the agency is not aware of any scientific evidence supporting their safety or effectiveness and they pose significant risks to patient health." ... Chlorine dioxide products have not been shown to be safe and effective for any use, including COVID-19, but these products continue to be sold as a remedy for treating autism, cancer, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and flu, among other conditions, despite their harmful effects." https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-warns-seller-marketing-dangerous-chlorine-dioxide-products-claim Did you share a press release from the FDA? Are you joking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DudleySquat Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/7/2024 at 9:42 PM, HighPriority said: Anyone who thinks Trump didn’t promote unscientific bulldust (for whatever purpose who knows) really isn’t worthy of having discussions with. That sentence is so bad on so many fronts. Ok, so don't argue with anyone. You should bring facts next time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DudleySquat Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 1/7/2024 at 9:20 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said: He was musing about the ability to somehow apply a "disinfectant" -- commonly thought of as bleach -- to internal human tissue in a way that would kill the coronavirus. And no, he wasn't right in the sense of being able to do that in any practical, medically acceptable way. I saw the word chlorine and that's enough to make me stay away from it. However, when I looked at WebMD they had a different take: Quote Some people swish and spit mouthwash solutions containing small amounts of chlorine dioxide for bad breath, tooth plaque, and wound healing, but there is no good scientific evidence to support most of these uses. https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1622/chlorine-dioxide So, it can be used as an oral agent to sanitize the mouth. That means it could be used to neutralize the virus itself. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPriority Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 15 hours ago, DudleySquat said: That sentence is so bad on so many fronts. Ok, so don't argue with anyone. You should bring facts next time. Most people understand the difference between rinsing their mouth and using internally, except you and Trumpy 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVENKEEL Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 The drug was given out to the crew, daily dosage for a month to combat Malaria. We had to sign a disclosure stating we were given the drug, whether you took it was up to you. You feel lucky, well do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaywalker2 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 David Gorski does a close analysis of the French hydroxychorloquine study at respectfulinsolence.com. I should note that he is pro-vaccine just to get that out of the way. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2024/01/10/did-hydroxychloroquine-hcq-really-kill-17000-covid-19-patients/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVENKEEL Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 On 1/6/2024 at 8:12 PM, lopburi3 said: Not fake at all. Off label use did nothing to prevent Covid and seems to have caused some users to have more severe issues than they would have had without - many lives were lost to this and it has been known for years but numbers had not previously been estimated. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4389800-hydroxychloroquine-deaths-study/#:~:text=Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malaria,proposed as a preventative measure. So, if these folks had been taking Vitamin C, would this also be a cause of death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopburi3 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 14 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said: So, if these folks had been taking Vitamin C, would this also be a cause of death. If research indicated such. But to compare these two substances in ludicrous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said: David Gorski does a close analysis of the French hydroxychorloquine study at respectfulinsolence.com. I should note that he is pro-vaccine just to get that out of the way. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2024/01/10/did-hydroxychloroquine-hcq-really-kill-17000-covid-19-patients/ And the upshot of Gorski's article: "the extrapolation used in this paper is problematic, but it is nonetheless likely true that rampant HCQ use probably did lead to a substantial number of deaths early in the pandemic. I would also add that the cult of HCQ, in which many later decided not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 because they mistakenly believed that HCQ and ivermectin were safe, inexpensive, and highly effective treatments, likely killed many more who might not have died if they had been vaccinated." ... "I tend to agree that the study likely does underestimate HCQ-associated deaths, but I also have to concede that the imprecision in the estimates doesn’t allow me to assume that." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 18 hours ago, DudleySquat said: https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1622/chlorine-dioxide So, it can be used as an oral agent to sanitize the mouth. That means it could be used to neutralize the virus itself. Except as the WebMD article you quote notes: "there is no good scientific evidence to support most of these uses. There is also no good evidence to support using chlorine dioxide for COVID-19." AND "The US FDA has warned consumers to avoid chlorine dioxide supplement products due to the risk for serious safety issues and death." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DudleySquat Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Except as the WebMD article you quote notes: "there is no good scientific evidence to support most of these uses. There is also no good evidence to support using chlorine dioxide for COVID-19." AND "The US FDA has warned consumers to avoid chlorine dioxide supplement products due to the risk for serious safety issues and death." It's not chlorine as you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, DudleySquat said: It's not chlorine as you know it. There's 2? I only know of Cl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now